MIT denies targeting Aaron Swartz

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has released a report claiming that administrators never targeted information activist Aaron Swartz and committed no wrongdoings. The university claims it remained neutral throughout the case.

In a 180-page document released on Tuesday, MIT revealed
long-awaited information about its involvement in the prosecution
of Swartz, a 26-year-old computer programmer who hanged himself
last January. The Internet activist was facing trial for
downloading millions of JSTOR articles from MIT’s network, which
he planned to make available to the public.

MIT claims it took a “position of neutrality” in the
Swartz case and did nothing to pursue the young man.

“The report… sets the record straight by dispelling widely
circulated myths,” MIT President L. Rafael Reif said in a
statement. “For example, it makes clear that MIT did not
‘target’ Aaron Swartz, we did not seek federal prosecution,
punishment or jail time, and we did not oppose a plea
bargain.”

But Robert Swartz, the father of the young programmer,on Tuesday
released a statement that contradicted the university’s claims,
and asked to be involved in MIT’s community discussions about the
report.

“MIT made numerous mistakes that warrant further examination
and significant changes,” he said, arguing that the
university was not neutral and “played a central role in
Aaron’s suicide.”

After Swartz committed suicide in his New York City apartment,
friends and supporters suggested that MIT assisted federal
prosecutors with their case – a claim that the university hoped
to strike down with its report.

Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman, Swartz’s girlfriend, described the
report as “whitewash”, and said the school’s response
was “reprehensible.”

“This report claims that MIT was ‘neutral’ – but MIT’s
lawyers gave prosecutors total access to witnesses and evidence,
while refusing access to Aaron’s lawyers to the exact same
witnesses and evidence. That’s not neutral,” she said in a
statement. “The fact is that all MIT had to do was say
publicly, ‘We don’t want this prosecution to go forward’ – and
Steve Heymann and Carmen Ortiz would have had no case.”

Hal Abelson, an MIT computer science and engineering professor
who headed the school’s review panel of the Swartz case, tried to
defend the 180-page conclusion. During a conference call with
reporters, he said that MIT did not intentionally involve federal
officials in its investigation of the network breach. The
professor said that Cambridge police showed up with the Secret
Service when university police reported that a laptop had been
found in a computer wiring closet.

Abelson also ensured reporters that MIT’s review team “did
not attempt to be judgmental.”

But even if MIT is telling the truth, the report will do little
to calm those who have argued that the university should have
done more to end the prosecution of a promising young man who
killed himself last January.

Swartz’s father said MIT did a “good job collecting and
presenting the facts” to support its claim of neutrality,
but “should have advocated on Aaron’s behalf.”